The Cultural Gutter

going through pop culture's trash since 2003

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." -- Oscar Wilde

Author’s Cut

James Schellenberg
Posted September 9, 2010

avatar-blue-small.jpgThe director’s cut is a familiar term in the world of film, but an equivalent “author’s cut” in the realm of
books is not a widespread notion. Why might that be?

I’m thinking of this because I recently saw Avatar, the re-release that is, with an extra 9 minutes of footage. For reasons which I’m a little embarrassed to discuss now, I saw Avatar in lowly 2D on its original release, and I pretty much hated it. I thought the story was terrible, and that the special effects were… ok, but not much of a defence against how the story was hurting my brain.

My general stance on the whole idea of a director’s cut is pretty simple: the deleted
scenes were deleted for a reason. In other words, the meddling folks who force all these creative prima donna types to cut their movies down to an acceptable running length for theatrical release are largely correct. Now, there are some obvious exceptions to this: for example, Blade Runner functions better as a movie in the Director’s Cut. The example is muddied by the fact that Ridley Scott keeps messing about with the movie, and that you have to watch it pretty closely to follow everything if your first experience of the movie is the Director’s Cut. So I’ll rephrase: Blade Runner functions better as a work of art in the Director’s Cut.

avatar-blue-big.jpgAn exception to my exception is James Cameron’s extended versions of Aliens, which took an already legendary movie, legendary mainly for its ferocious action scenes, and fleshed out the story. The movie now works for people who don’t particularly care for action movies or monster features, etc (trust me, I’ve seen it happen). You can’t really say that about any of the imitators of Aliens.

So what happened when I rewatched Avatar, this time in 3D, and this time with some extra padding on the story? I have to admit, I now see why people got a little crazy over the effects in this movie: the 3D is way, way better than any other 3D movie I’ve seen. To quantify, let’s say that it’s 100x better and leave it at that. The story still stinks (unobtainium, white man’s burden, and so forth), but the bits and pieces flow together much more smoothly and I didn’t mind the longer running time.

This brings me back around to the idea of an author’s cut, and why it’s not a widespread notion. I think the explanation is pretty basic and it comes down to cold hard cash. It costs a lot of money to make nine extra minutes of Avatar footage, and Cameron got to add it because the other 160+ minutes made a boatload of dollars. Yes, I know that cost pressures exist in the publishing industry, and, yes, I know there are lots of books that have been split in two for cost reasons, but the scale of money involved is radically different.

Generally speaking, I think books get released in a state that’s pretty close to how their author intended; if that’s not the case, then the author hardly ever gets a chance to correct the situation. If a setting or character becomes popular, a sequel seems to me to be more likely than a re-done version of the original story. Additionally, movies generally have lots of extra footage lying around, and the rise of the DVD special feature gave space for the extra bits and bobs.

I can think of two examples of an author’s cut in genre books: Stephen King’s The Stand and Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land. And I won’t go into many details about either one, because I’ve never had the gumption to pick them up! I ended up reading the “butchered” versions long ago and can’t summon the energy to do some kind of textual comparison. By reading those comparisons online, I can see that longer version of The Stand is an especial treat for the fans, and I’m not one of their company. Similarly, Heinlein’s book.

Some published books feel like there already was an author’s cut – I’m looking at you, late-series Harry Potter. Again, fans don’t mind, but in the case of Harry Potter, there’s no “theatrical release” to go back to! If you’re grumpy with the excessive wordiness that Rowling used to wrap up the series, you’re out of luck.

Update (December 2010): Wertzone has been tracking the developments regarding the republication of the Chung Kuo saga, and I have to say this is a pretty clear example of an author’s cut. What was once an eight-book series is getting two new prequels and the addition of 500 000 words (I’m unclear whether that’s counting the prequels – the original 8 books are getting spruced up as well and divided into two separate volumes apiece), to bulk up to a twenty-book series!  (With another 2 titles carved out somehow?) I’ve read the original versions, and I remember three things: a saga that was already long and complicated, tons of sexual violence, and a terrible ending that went way beyond “WTF!?” territory into comprehensive self-sabotage. I’m not sure if the extra verbiage will help fix any of those, unfortunately.

Comments

2 Responses to “Author’s Cut”

  1. NefariousDrO
    September 9th, 2010 @ 9:46 pm

    I’ve always thought that these “director’s cuts” are really just a blatant attempt to squeeze a few more dollars out of a movie and it’s fans. Mostly the fans. Let’s face it, how many people really are going to go and watch a re-release of a movie they already saw at full price again? Only the dedicated fans (who probably did that during the initial release as well) And, as you pointed out, the extra footage is already shot, so it’s really just a matter of doing a bit of editing and possibly tweaking the soundtrack a bit. With today’s studio capabilities they don’t need to re-compose music, even, so it’s once again an editing function. Still expensive in some cases I’m sure, but they get to charge full price again, and the fans gladly fork over.

  2. Carol Borden
    September 10th, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

    yes, i agree there’s certainly a mercenary component to it. but i think the results are a little more complicated than simply milked fans. as james notes, films are expensive and largely a group endeavor, unlike books. if it weren’t cheaper to do and a potential money-maker for studios and producers, directors would not be able to fix things that nervous studios pushed on them–like the ill-conceived narration in Blade Runner.
    and, as a fan of asian films, i’m very pleased that multiple versions of film have become available on dvd, given how different versions of a film are distributed to different markets. international, 5-hour version of Red Cliff? yes, please. i’d much rather see that than the 3 hour north american heavily edited cut. at least knowing there are multiple cuts of movies like Blade Runner or Avatar makes it easier for an audience to realize there are often multiple versions of foreign language film.
    For me a bigger problem is that sometimes a film or book is better when it’s been cut. but who’s going to be able to edit stephen king when everything he writes is successful?

Leave a Reply





  • Support The Gutter

  • The Book!

  • Of Note Elsewhere

    At RogerEbert.com, Alan Zilberman explores the history of the eye in cinema from Carl Theodor Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) to Mark Cahill’s I Origins (2014). (via Matt Zoller Seitz)

    ~

    At Never Get Off The Bus, Debbie Moon writes about Captain America: First Avenger. “When adapting existing material, it’s easy to assume that in order to reach point F, you simply have to work through points A – E. To set up Steve Rogers in the modern world, simply romp briskly through everything that happened before he got there. But your character may not be undergoing a single united emotional journey during that period. “

    ~

    At Sequart, friend of the Gutter Colin Smith is taking an exhaustive look at the American superhero comics of Mark Millar–and by exhaustive, we mean, “28 Part.”

    ~

    Friend of the Gutter, Will McKinley writes about his past as a soap opera fan and the return of a classic soap opera, The Doctors, and its significance for the genre.

     

    ~

    Action choreographer, director and stunt performer Panna Rittikrai has died. Films Panna worked on, whether as a choreographer, director, producer and/or actor include: Born To Fight / Gerd Ma Lui (1986 and 2004), Tom Yum Goong (2005), Chocolate (2008), Spirited Killer (1994),  Power Kids (2009),  Dynamite Warrior/Khon Fai Bin (2006), Bangkok Knockout (2010) and all three Ong-Bak films (2003, 2008, 2010).  Film Business Asia, The Bangkok Post and Wise Kwai’s Thai Film Journal have obituaries. City On Fire and Far East Films also remember Panna. Here’s an interview with Panna from Thai Indie.  Panna kicks ass in this tribute video.

    ~

    Actor and singer Elaine Stritch has died. Stritch worked extensively on Broadway, but she also appeared in September (1987), Small Time Crooks (2000), Monster-In-Law (2005), the British television series, Two’s Company3rd Rock From The Sun, My Sister Eileen and 30 Rock. The New York Times Variety and The Detroit Free Press. Saara Dutton remembers Stritch in her piece, “In Praise of Broads.” Here Stritch performs, “Zip” from Pal Joey, “Why Do The Wrong People Travel?” from Sail Away and “I’m Still Here” at the White House. Here she is in a 2008 production of Endgame. And here she is on Theater Talk.

    ~

  • Spilling into Twitter

  • Obsessive?

    Then you might be interested in knowing you can subscribe to our RSS feed, find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter or Tumblr.

    -------

  • Weekly Notifications

  • What We’re Talking About

  • Thanks To

    No Media Kings hosts this site, and Wordpress autoconstructs it.

  • %d bloggers like this: